Although both presently function separately from each other, they both have the same organization, etc.
On August 1, 1963, the overseas branch will discontinue being a separate branch and will become completely subsidiary to the main stateside branch.
CUSA is set up similar to the Ford Motor Co. and its dependent, the Ford Foundation.
Ford Motor Co. of CUSA is American Businesses, Inc. or AMBUS. AMBUS will be a private profitmaking corporation which finances its own Ford Foundation, which is Conservatism, USA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan conservative political foundation with the goals outlined above.
The owners of AMBUS are the same as the five partners who are the board chairmen of CUSA, the partners I mentioned before. All positions in AMBUS and CUSA are appointed by the ETC or the executive in the council, which again are the five members of that which has been mentioned.
Every member of CUSA and AMBUS who works for either or both of AMBUS and CUSA full time shall be paid at a salary at least equivalent to that paid a man in a similar position in industry or politics.
In most cases AMBUS and CUSA will pay its people higher salaries.
CUSA is broken down into three divisions: the political analysis division, the recruitment and fund solicitation division, and the foreign affairs division.
AMBUS is divided into two divisions: the business management division and the public relations division.
AMBUS' two divisions fully support the activities of CUSA. Each division has its own organizational setup and subsidiary sections and officers to carry out its functions.
For a copy of this, ask the chief of your particular branch—that is pertaining to a new member. He will be happy to show it to you. For detailed information on the operations of any particular division, ask the chief of the division in question.
Geographically CUSA is broken down into six regions. These are the eastern, northern, southern, southwestern, midwestern, and western regions.
Each region has several States under its jurisdiction.
The headquarters of each region are as follows: eastern, New York City; northern, Chicago; southern, Atlanta; southwestern, Dallas; midwestern, Wichita; western, Los Angeles.
These regional headquarters come directly under CUSA's Dallas home headquarters. Each State within the region also has its CUSA headquarters. In each case the headquarters is located in the capital of each State.
The State headquarters come directly under the regional headquarters in which they are located. Each State in turn is broken down into districts with several counties comprising a district.
Most States are broken down into four or five districts. These district headquarters come directly under the State headquarters and the breakdowns go along as I have mentioned, and it gets smaller and smaller as the areas get smaller.
Both AMBUS and CUSA will have staffs in each of the regional State district and city headquarters. These will be full-time salaried employees.
How does CUSA expect to gain its goals? CUSA is convinced it can induce all other conservative organizations to join it, especially if CUSA has induced a large number, that more and more will want to jump on its bandwagon.
For those organizations that refuse to join, CUSA will bring pressures to bear to end their resistance.
CUSA will also work closely with conservatives in the Republican and Democratic parties.
Among CUSA's members are some of the finest salesmen around, men who know how to convince, how to sell, how to persuade: CUSA intends to work toward monopolization of the money available for rightwing organizations, thus forcing any organizations to come into the CUSA fold.
CUSA will use any method, so long as it is legal and honorable, to attain its goal. A timetable has been set up to guide CUSA's actions, when each project has to be completed, and places these projects in proper timetable sequence.
What will happen to CUSA after it reaches its goals? CUSA shall continue to aid the conservative cause and keep our Government conservative. So long as there is a U.S.A. there shall be a CUSA.
Can I make a career of CUSA? Most definitely. CUSA and AMBUS are big business. Think of CUSA as being the same as a political party like the Democratic or Republican. Even if it isn't actually a third party, it shall function as one. However, if you desire and have the necessary qualifications, CUSA will even run an individual for a political office if it feels you can win.
AMBUS needs good business minds and CUSA needs aggressive political minds.
Above all, CUSA-AMBUS needs salesmen, public speakers, writers, debaters, analysts. Men who think like men of action and act like men of thought.
But CUSA also needs background men, men willing to stay out of the public eye and work quietly to do the planning, thinking, creating, formalizing, and other things in a great cause.
CUSA-AMBUS has established regular wage scales along the line of the civil service, GS-4 to GS-18.
Just what is a conservative, anyway? A conservative is a person who looks at a man or a woman as an individual and respects him or her as a unique human being rather than just a face in the crowd; a member of the mass who believes in individual initiative above collective charity, yet accepts charity where the individual cannot provide for himself; who believes the Government should be supported by the people, not the people supported by the Government; who believes Government should be restricted to those areas of concern outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, leaving the citizen free to pursue life, liberty and happiness without the overburdens of excessive taxation that restrict such pursuits; who believes that every effort should be made by individuals to provide for themselves first and when that can't be done, help by local, State, or private charitable organizations rather than by Federal Government aid comprised of general taxation; who believes that the Federal Government should not compete with private enterprise or interfere with the rights of the States as outlined in the Constitution; who believes that the best Government is the Government which governs least; who believes that the best interests of the American people should be served by its Government first before the peoples of other countries, yet believes we Americans must help the needy peoples of other countries; who believes the best interests of the U.S.A. should first be served by our Federal Government before the needs of other nations are looked into, yet that we should aid needy nations where aid is justified and deserved, and in the best interests of our country; who believes that the American form of republican government, a government of the people, for the people, by the people, with rule by law and constitution, is the only way of government and way of life for Americans; who believes that although a government and system of law and rule and economics isn't perfect, it is the best one ever attempted by mankind in its long history; who believes that private enterprise and capitalism is the whole basis of our way of life and the reason of our way of life—and the reason our way of life is so richly endowed; who believes that communism is the greatest threat to the existence and freedom of America and must be completely defeated; who believes there can be no peace without victory over communism; who believes that the truerevolutionary political system and the true revolution of mankind is the American democracy and democratic and political system; that the enslavement of man embodied in communism is as old as mankind itself, and therefore there is nothing revolutionary about it, even though it has a modern name and foundation and is certainly no good, indeed fatal, to mankind.
Is CUSA identified with any other organization or society? CUSA is associated with no organization or group, be it political, economic, social, fraternal, or religious. CUSA is committed to none, either.
I can interject a footnote of my own at this point. At council sessions we decided to use whatever vehicles were necessary in the way of other organizations to get CUSA off the ground and at the same time keep the name CUSA secret among ourselves, as it was our organization, you might say; no one of the other organizations that we became involved with knew anything about the existence of CUSA or what we had planned to do with it. They did not know, the individuals that we were concerned with did not know, that in many cases, as a matter of fact, we were using them merely as a vehicle to further the interest of CUSA.
Just who does CUSA hope to elect President?
I want to reiterate that this was prepared in late 1961 or very early 1962.
CUSA considers Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) as Mr. Conservative, U.S.A., and wholeheartedly endorses him for the Presidency, although CUSA is not committed to Mr. Goldwater in any way. However, it is felt that he is by far the most outstanding conservative politician and spokesman in the country.
How does CUSA feel about the so-called radical rightwing? CUSA has proof that many so-called radical organizations are not really radical or at least as radical as the enemies or opposition of these organizations would have the public believe.
CUSA loathes extremism of the right, typified by the American Nazi Party, as much as it does the extremism of the left, exemplified by the Communist Party in the U.S.A.
CUSA does not believe, however, that an American can be too radical or extreme in his love or patriotism for his country.
CUSA endorses Americanism, love of country, and patriotism, even if it does not always agree with what some citizens believe is wrong with our country, who is to blame for our faults and our solution to our problems.
CUSA has faith in and believes in many rightwing organizations and their endeavors, although it does not always agree with everything they say or do, the words or actions of their leaders.
On the other hand, CUSA does not condemn a patriot who, in the heat of anger or frustration, says things which are irresponsible and not honestly meant. On the other hand, CUSA cannot subscribe to continued irresponsibility on the part of organizations, its leaders or membership.
This is one reason, for example, recently in Dallas, we decided not to become, at least as far as we knew, to become involved with anybody associated or doing business with General Walker, as an example. We made it a point to try to stay clear of that.
How does CUSA feel about communism? CUSA intends to do everything it can to destroy communism. CUSA is against any philosophy, any organization, any group, any individual which threatens the freedom, way of life, or congressional government of the United States.
CUSA is against any tyranny, whatever its skin or title; against anything indecent, unlawful, or harmful to man.
Can anyone join CUSA? Any citizen of the United States who believes in what CUSA is trying to do and who is not a demagog or dishonest, may join CUSA regardless of race, religion, creed, or ethnic origin. CUSA does not believe that patriotism is contingent upon skin, color, or religion or family background.
Let me say again that this was prepared in 1961, and in its essence has been followed through to the—up until the 22d of November 1963, and this, I think, would give some reasons or give you several answers as to why the ad was placed, why it read as it did.
Mr.Eisenberg. That completes the statement?
Mr.Weissman. That completes my statement.
Mr.Eisenberg. OK; then we will stand adjourned.
The testimony of Warren Allen Reynolds was taken at 3:35 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you rise and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr.Reynolds. I do.
Mr.Liebeler. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.
Under the rules of procedure governing the taking of testimony, you are entitled to have an attorney present at this hearing. You are also entitled to 3 days' notice for the hearing, and you are entitled to exercise whatever rights and privileges, as far as not answering questions are concerned, as are afforded to you under the Constitution and laws of the United States. I assume that you do not wish to have an attorney present, since you don't have one here. Most of the witnesses do not have.
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr.Reynolds. Warren Allen Reynolds.
Mr.Liebeler. What is your address?
Mr.Reynolds. 8707 Mosswood.
Mr.Liebeler. Here in Dallas?
Mr.Reynolds. Dallas.
Mr.Liebeler. When were you born, Mr. Reynolds?
Mr.Reynolds. June 22, 1935.
Mr.Liebeler. Are you employed here in Dallas?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; Reynolds Motor Co.
Mr.Liebeler. What kind of company is that?
Mr.Reynolds. It is a used-car lot.
Mr.Liebeler. It is operated by you and by your brother; is that correct?
Mr.Reynolds. It is operated by my brother, and I am an employee there.
Mr.Liebeler. You are not an owner of the corporation?
Mr.Reynolds. No, sir.
Mr.Liebeler. You are employed by your brother?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you give us briefly what your educational background is?
Mr.Reynolds. High school.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you graduate from high school here in Dallas?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Which school?
Mr.Reynolds. Forest Avenue High School.
Mr.Liebeler. Where is this Reynolds Motor Co. located?
Mr.Reynolds. 500 East Jefferson.
Mr.Liebeler. How far is that from the corner of 10th and Patton?
Mr.Reynolds. One block.
Mr.Liebeler. Were you there at the used-car lot on November 22, 1963?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Were you there at about, say, after the hour of 12 o'clock noon in the afternoon?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Tell us what you saw; will you, please?
Mr.Reynolds. OK; our office is up high where I can have a pretty good view of what was going on. I heard the shots and, when I heard the shots, I went out on this front porch which is, like I say, high, and I saw this man coming down the street with the gun in his hand, swinging it just like he was running. He turned the corner of Patton and Jefferson, going west, and put the gun in his pants and took off, walking.
Mr.Liebeler. How many shots did you hear?
Mr.Reynolds. I really have no idea, to be honest with you. I would say four or five or six. I just would have no idea. I heard one, and then I heard a succession of some more, and I didn't see the officer get shot.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.Reynolds. Very good.
Mr.Liebeler. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the Dallas Police Department, were you not?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about the man that you saw going down the street?
Mr.Reynolds. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?
Mr.Liebeler. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?
Mr.Reynolds. January 21.
Mr.Liebeler. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?
Mr.Reynolds. No; I sure didn't.
Mr.Liebeler. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?
Mr.Reynolds. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.Reynolds. I did.
Mr.Liebeler. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You had no question about it?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Reynolds. In my mind.
Mr.Liebeler. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
Mr.Liebeler. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.Reynolds. Well, yes and no. When it happened, and after I seen—and you probably know what I did—after I saw the man on the corner of Patton and Jefferson, I followed him up the street behind the service station and lost him. I went back there and looked up and down the alley and didn't see him, and looked through the cars and still didn't see him.
Then the police got there, and they took my name. While they were taking my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television, I am sure nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big time, I guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had done, and they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again over the radio station. And other than that, no.
Mr.Liebeler. Well, what was it that they said you had done? All you had done was try to follow this man and he got away from you?
Mr.Reynolds. And he got away.
Mr.Liebeler. Then you went back and you looked around for him around the car lot in the area and you weren't able to find him?
Mr.Reynolds. I looked through the parking lot for him after. See, when he went behind the service station, I was right across the street, and when he ducked behind, I ran across the street and asked this man which way he went, and they told me the man had gone to the back. And I ran back there and looked up and down the alley right then and didn't see him, and I looked under the cars, and I assumed that he was still hiding there.
Mr.Liebeler. In the parking lot?
Mr.Reynolds. Even to this day I assume that he was.
Mr.Liebeler. Where was this parking lot located now?
Mr.Reynolds. It would be at the back of the Texaco station that is on the corner of Crawford and Jefferson where they found his coat.
Mr.Liebeler. They found his coat in the parking lot?
Mr.Reynolds. They found his coat there.
Mr.Liebeler. So that he had apparently gone through the parking lot?
Mr.Reynolds. Oh, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. And gone down the alley or something back to Jefferson Street?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes. When the police got there, and they were all there, I was trying to assure them that he was still there close. This was all a bunch of confusion. They didn't know what was going on. And they got word that he was down at a library which was about 3 blocks down the street on the opposite side of the street.
Mr.Liebeler. Down Jefferson?
Mr.Reynolds. Down Jefferson. And every one of them left to go there. So when they left, well, I did too, and I didn't know this man had shot a policeman. I wouldn't probably be near as brave if I had known that. The next time, I guarantee, I won't be as brave.
Mr.Liebeler. No; I can't say that I blame you, although we don't know there is any connection. But we would certainly like to find it, if there is.
Mr.Reynolds. There is no connection that you can prove now.
Mr.Liebeler. Let's come to that a little bit at a time.
Mr.Reynolds. Okay.
Mr.Liebeler. When you were on television, what was shown is that you were talking to the policeman?
Mr.Reynolds. They were taking my name. No name was shown, was mentioned.
Mr.Liebeler. They were just taking down your name?
Mr.Reynolds. Just my name.
Mr.Liebeler. When it was told on the radio about your involvement in it, was it also made clear that you had not, in fact, directed—let me ask the question this way. Was it ever stated either on the television or the radio that you had directed the police to the Texas Theatre?
Mr.Reynolds. Not the direction. In the general direction, but not to the theatre.
Mr.Liebeler. In fact, you were looking for this man who later turned out to be Oswald, in this parking lot which was some distance from the Texas Theatre at that point?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. And you never saw Oswald continue on down the street—on down Jefferson or go in the Texas Theatre, and you never told the police that he had gone in that direction, did you?
Mr.Reynolds. I told the police he was going in that direction.
Mr.Liebeler. He was going—you told the police he went into the parking lot, or what did you tell him?
Mr.Reynolds. That he was going west. I told them that he was going west, and I had assumed that he just cut through the parking lot and kept going the general direction he was going in.
Mr.Liebeler. But he hadn't gotten to Jefferson by the time you had seen him?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right. He was about almost half a block before he got to Jefferson.
Mr.Liebeler. But he was heading toward Jefferson?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; he was heading toward Jefferson.
Mr.Liebeler. You never saw him after he got to Jefferson?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes. When he got to Jefferson, that is when I followed him.
Mr.Liebeler. And he went which way?
Mr.Reynolds. Went down Jefferson, and then he went behind the station, and that is when I lost him.
Mr.Liebeler. He went around behind the station, and there was a parking lot back there, is that right?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. You went back in the parking lot and you were looking for him there, but you never saw him again after he ducked off Jefferson into the parking lot?
Mr.Reynolds. Just on television.
Mr.Liebeler. Then according to the information that I have, on January 23, 1964, you were shot in the head by a bullet from a 22 caliber rifle, is that correct?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; right there [pointing to right temple].
Mr.Liebeler. On the right side of your head?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; and it went to here [pointing to left ear].
Mr.Liebeler. Would you tell us the circumstances in which that happened?
Mr.Reynolds. I know this man was waiting for 3½ hours in a basement where I work.
Mr.Liebeler. In a car lot?
Mr.Reynolds. In a car lot.
Mr.Liebeler. At the car lot?
Mr.Reynolds. At the car lot, the Johnny Reynolds Co. And when I went down to turn off the lights in this basement where he had taken the light globe out of the room, I went in there more or less in the dark to turn off the light. It is a switchboard, and when I walked up to it and turned two switches, this man couldn't hardly have been over a foot from me with the rifle, and shot me.
When he shot me, I ran upstairs. I went around to the right about 20 feet and got this towel to, of course, stop the blood, and when I turned around to go call the police, I had assumed all the time that I had been electrocuted for some silly reason, never dreaming I had been shot. But when I saw the man run off, I figured right then I must have been shot, so I ran on in and called the police.
Mr.Liebeler. When did you see the man run off?
Mr.Reynolds. When I ran upstairs and ran around to the right to get this towel, and he came up out of the basement. I saw him and two more people saw him.
Mr.Liebeler. You then got the towel. Did you call the police?
Mr.Reynolds. I was able to call the police. Then I laid down just for a fewminutes, and the ambulance got there and carried me to the hospital, and by some miracle, I survived, very much a miracle. The police got the call at 9:19 p.m. in the evening of January 23.
Mr.Liebeler. Now were you able to identify the individual who ran up out of the basement?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you have any idea who it was?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. What kind of fellow did he look like? Did you get a physical description of him?
Mr.Reynolds. No; it was just a blur to me. It was just a blur, but the people that saw him said he was around 5 foot 4, weight around 130 or 140 pounds, and was either Spanish or Cuban or Indian or something like that; not Negro.
Mr.Liebeler. He was not a Negro, but he was of a foreign extraction or foreign appearing, or dark colored?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; dark colored, the way they described him. He had a rifle.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you have any idea as to why somebody might have wanted to take a shot at you, why did they?
Mr.Reynolds. I have no proof. I would say it would be fair to think that somebody shot me on account of they thought I knew something or had some connection with Lee Oswald. It was definitely not people that I would know of, and it hadn't been business. I am sure it wasn't in business form.
Mr.Liebeler. What did you do in the car lot? Are you engaged actually in selling and trading automobiles?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; generally everything.
Mr.Liebeler. You can't think of any reason why one of your customers wanted to take a shot at you?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Is there anybody else around the company that might have been having trouble with anybody else that maybe you got shot by mistake, or something like that? Is that possible?
Mr.Reynolds. We ruled that out.
Mr.Liebeler. You considered that possibility?
Mr.Reynolds. I have considered everything.
Mr.Liebeler. Did the police conduct an investigation of this?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Of this shooting?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. In fact, they came out with a suspect, didn't they?
Mr.Reynolds. They came out with one, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you know that individual before he was picked up in connection with this investigation?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. How long had you know him?
Mr.Reynolds. I had known him for about 6 or 7 years.
Mr.Liebeler. Was he a friend of yours?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. How did you come to know him?
Mr.Reynolds. Just in business. Our business with him was bad business.
Mr.Liebeler. In what sense?
Mr.Reynolds. Well, he was a troublemaker. But at no time did I think he was the one that shot me.
Mr.Liebeler. How did you form an opinion on the question of whether this was the man who shot you? In fact, we are talking about a man by the name of Darrell Wayne Garner.
Mr.Reynolds. That was just my personal opinion.
Mr.Liebeler. You weren't able to see the man who shot you to say whether it was Garner or whether it wasn't?
Mr.Reynolds. No; that's right.
Mr.Liebeler. Isn't it a fact that Garner had been in the car lot on January20, 1964, trying to sell you an automobile, particularly a 1957 Oldsmobile for which he didn't have a title?
Mr.Reynolds. Not that I know of.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you discussed this with your brother?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Your brother is Johnny Reynolds?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. He lives at 622 West Five Mile Parkway, is that correct?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. Would it surprise you to know that on January 23 he apparently told the Dallas Police Department that Garner had been in the carlot on January 20 and tried to trade a 1957 Oldsmobile for which he did not have a title, and became extremely upset when he, Johnny Reynolds, wouldn't purchase the automobile from Garner?
Mr.Reynolds. I had to keep in mind that it is possible that that had happened and I just didn't, I mean I have been through an awful lot these 6 months, and it is possible that I have just missed it, but I would say I would be a little bit surprised.
Mr.Liebeler. What kind of person is Garner?
Mr.Reynolds. Well, to describe him as best I can, I heard that his mother had $10 hidden one night and he wanted it and she wouldn't tell him where it was, and he held a knife to her throat threatening to kill her unless she did. He is just a complete troublemaker.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you know where he lives?
Mr.Reynolds. No; I heard he was in Las Vegas. In fact, I parked my car at his father-in-law's. He runs a little parking lot right there down the street, and it so happened I pulled into that parking lot when I came here.
Mr.Liebeler. But you haven't seen him around recently? You don't know where he is?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. In any event, Garner was released from the Dallas Police Department after they conducted an investigation?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Into the possibility he might have been involved in the shooting of you?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Now, do you have any basis for your belief that the shot at you was somehow connected with the assassination, other than pure speculation or surmise on your part?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you have any idea as to who it might be other than the fact, as you have previously explained before, it might be that since your were associated in some way with Oswald's apprehension in the Texas Theatre, that somebody wanted to get you for that?
Mr.Reynolds. A lot of people thought that I followed him all the way to the Texas Theatre and pointed him out in the theatre. A lot of people, just rumors, thought that, and a lot of people still think it.
Mr.Liebeler. But in fact, there isn't any fact that you can point to or tell me about that would connect up the assassination in any way with the shooting of you on January 23?
Mr.Reynolds. I can't think of anything that could be a fact unless we just found the man.
Mr.Liebeler. For the purpose of our investigation, I mean if there were any connection between your shooting on January 23 and Oswald's arrest for the assassination, we want to know about it. That is perfectly clear, is it not?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. I am asking you if you have any facts that would tie it up.
Mr.Reynolds. I have no facts. I just have my own beliefs.
Mr.Liebeler. And you do believe that there is some relation, do you?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you know Nancy J. Mooney?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you ever heard of her?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. What have you heard?
Mr.Reynolds. I heard that she was with Garner the night that I got shot. I heard that she took a lie detector test that helped free him. I heard that a few days later she was caught fighting and they put her in jail, and she hung herself. I heard that she formerly worked for Jack Ruby as a stripper.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you know who told you that?
Mr.Reynolds. I read it in Bob Considine's article.
Mr.Liebeler. Is that the only source of your information concerning Nancy J. Mooney?
Mr.Reynolds. The police told me that she had hung herself and that she was the one that was with Garner. Everybody calls him "Dago."
Mr.Liebeler. Did the police department tell you that she had worked for Jack Ruby?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. The only source of information that you have for that is the article that Bob Considine wrote about this whole thing?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you heard anything about Nancy J. Mooney, or do you know anything about her other than that which you read in Bob Considine's newspaper article?
Mr.Reynolds. No; I don't. Well, I know one thing, she was 16, and her age, that is just what I have heard.
Mr.Liebeler. You have heard that?
Mr.Reynolds. From the police department.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you know that she also used the name Betty MacDonald?
Mr.Reynolds. No; I didn't know that.
Mr.Liebeler. My information is also that she is 24, not 16.
Mr.Reynolds. Twenty-four?
Mr.Liebeler. Did you ever hear that she tried to commit suicide prior to the time she hung herself in the Dallas Police Station?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Or that she had four children that had been taken away from her because of her conduct?
Mr.Reynolds. I see nothing in that whole story that Considine wrote that would really come to me—be true.
I mean, it is true in one sense, and it is fair story, but I don't see any connection there, let's say.
Mr.Liebeler. Considine was trying to create an impression that some girl had worked for Jack Ruby and was connected with Garner, and hung herself in the police department?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you believe there is any connection in that respect?
Mr.Reynolds. No; I don't.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you considered, when you thought about this problem, that there are other people that actually went down to the police station and viewed Oswald in lineups, and have testified in Washington before this Commission, and received international publicity in connection with the identification of Oswald as the murderer of Tippit and that so far at any rate they have not been attacked in any way such as you were?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; I have.
Mr.Liebeler. Can you suggest to me why you were picked out to be shot for this reason and not these other people?
Mr.Reynolds. The ones that I know, I am the only aggressor in the whole bunch. I am the only one that actually did something more than just look. I actually did something.
Mr.Liebeler. But that is the only distinction you can see between yourself and those other people?
Mr.Reynolds. That's right.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you discussed this question of the possible relationship between your shooting and the assassination, with General Walker?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; I have.
Mr.Liebeler. What did you say to him and what did he say to you about this matter, if you remember.
Mr.Reynolds. Oh, I said to him basically the same thing that I have said to you, and he said it could be and he thinks that it's strange that I was shot. I think anybody would think it strange. But of course, if you have ever talked to him, he wouldn't say yes or no.
Mr.Liebeler. Does General Walker know of any facts, so far as you know, that would relate your shooting to the assassination?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. He has never expressed a firm opinion to you one way or the other as to whether there was in fact, any connection between the two, has he?
Mr.Reynolds. Let me just let him answer that when he talks to you.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you know that he is going to talk to us?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes; I do.
Mr.Liebeler. How do you know that?
Mr.Reynolds. I talked to him.
Mr.Liebeler. Talked to him since we have invited him to come over and talk to us?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. When is the last time you talked to General Walker?
Mr.Reynolds. Around noon today.
Mr.Liebeler. Talked to him on the telephone? Or in person?
Mr.Reynolds. Telephone; yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you discuss with him your appearance before the Commission here?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you tell us the general subject of your conversation?
Mr.Reynolds. I just don't want to answer that, really.
Mr.Liebeler. Preceding your conversation at noon today, when was the last time you talked to him before that, do you remember, approximately?
Mr.Reynolds. About a week ago. Maybe 2 weeks.
Mr.Liebeler. How many times have you talked to him about this question altogether?
Mr.Reynolds. I have no idea; five or six.
Mr.Liebeler. Now, in fact, General Walker sent a telegram to the Commission suggesting that we take your testimony, did he not?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You knew that he did? Did he tell you that?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes. May I go off the record?
Mr.Liebeler. Sure.
I think I have asked you all the questions I can think of, Mr. Reynolds, at this point. But I do want to say this to you. If you can think of anything else that you want the Commission to know in connection with this whole thing, I want you to feel free to say what it is right now. Or if you think there are any other facts that relate to this that we haven't brought out.
Mr.Reynolds. I don't know of any. I think it should be investigated what happened to me.
Mr.Liebeler. The Dallas Police Department did conduct an investigation of the attack on you.
Mr.Reynolds. But their investigation didn't go too much past Garner. I mean they questioned a lot of people, but not anything of any importance. They have a little old bullet. I believe that is the only clue that they have.
Mr.Liebeler. If you can't think of anything else that you think we ought to know and I haven't already asked you about, we can terminate the deposition at this point.
Mr.Reynolds. I would like to say something that might be important. About 3 weeks after I got out of the hospital, which would be around the 20th of February, my little 10-year-old daughter—somebody tried to pick her up, tried to get her in a car.
Now, again, whether that has any connection or not, I don't know, but it didhappen, and it never had happened before nor after. But they even offered her money. She was smart enough to run and get away.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you seen any other indication that anybody has been following you or that anybody is watching you or anything like that?
Mr.Reynolds. Someone unscrewed my light globe one night on the front porch of my house, and someone definitely did it.
Whether it was a jokester or kid, but I have a lamp over the light. They had to take three screws loose to get to my light globe. They took those off and unscrewed my light, and that is for sure. Now, that was around the 20th of February, too.
Mr.Liebeler. That was after you had gotten out of the hospital?
Mr.Reynolds. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Is there anything else that would lead you to think anybody has been looking for you or looking after you?
Mr.Reynolds. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.
The testimony of Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, was taken at 10:25 a.m., on July 25, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. W. David Slawson and Richard M. Mosk, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr.Slawson. I will swear you in if you will rise? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MissJohnson. I do.
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson, would you please state your full name and address?
MissJohnson. My full name is Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, 48 Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass.
Mr.Slawson. And would you state for the record your occupation or activities now and also what they were in 1959 when you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
MissJohnson. In 1959 I was a Moscow correspondent for the North American Newspaper Alliance, and now I am a freelance writer on Soviet affairs.
Mr.Slawson. Have you been given a copy of the Executive order and the joint resolution authorizing the creation of this Commission?
MissJohnson. I have.
Mr.Slawson. And an opportunity to read them?
MissJohnson. I have.
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson has been asked to testify this morning because she in the course of her duties as a newspaper correspondent in 1959 interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald on at least one occasion while he was in Moscow, just after he had announced to the American Embassy that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and become a Soviet citizen. She is going to describe to the best of her recollection, with the help of her notes taken at the time, what went on during that interview. Miss Johnson, first I think we will put in as exhibits the various notes you have taken and articles you have written since that time, about your interview with Mr. Oswald. I present you a copy, marked Johnson Exhibit No. 1, of the notes you have said were taken at that time, and I wonder if you would acknowledge that that is a true copy.
MissJohnson. Yes; it is.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)
Mr.Slawson. I present this as Exhibit No. 1, introduce it in evidence as Exhibit No. 1.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson, I have marked this as Exhibit No. 2.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)
Mr.Slawson. It purports to be a true copy of the article you wrote of your interview with Mr. Oswald, and submitted on November 18, 1959.
MissJohnson. That is right. I submitted it to the Soviet censor on November 18.
Mr.Slawson. I submit this in evidence and mark it as Exhibit No. 2.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Mosk. Miss Johnson, was anything censored?
MissJohnson. No. It would show on that. Nothing was censored.
Mr.Slawson. I now show you a document marked Exhibit No. 3 which purports to be a true copy of an article you wrote for the Boston Globe.
MissJohnson. I wrote it for the North American Newspaper Alliance. That just happens to be one place that it appeared. It probably appeared in other places too.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)
Mr.Slawson. Then I will say yourarticle——
MissJohnson. For the North American Newspaper Alliance.
Mr.Slawson. As it appeared inthe——
MissJohnson. As it appeared in the Boston Globe.
Mr.Slawson. I believe that was on November 24, 1963?
MissJohnson. Sunday. November 24. It was filed on November 22.
Mr.Slawson. Except for possible deletions of your complete article as it was submitted, is that a true copy of your article?
MissJohnson. A true copy of my article.
Mr.Slawson. I present this in evidence as Exhibit No. 3.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Slawson. I now have a document marked Exhibit No. 4 which is an article from the—a copy of an article from the Christian Science Monitor of November 25, 1963.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)
MissJohnson. The interview was given November 23, and that is a true copy of the interview as published in the Monitor.
Mr.Slawson. For the record, Miss Johnson, that is an interview of you by a correspondent working for the Christian Science Monitor; is that correct?
MissJohnson. Yes.
Mr.Slawson. I then introduce it in evidence as Exhibit No. 4.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson, I have here what purports to be a true copy of a statement you gave to a representative of the U.S. Department of State on December 5, 1963, and it has been marked Priscilla Johnson Exhibit No. 5.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.)
MissJohnson. Yes; that is okay. That is a copy.
Mr.Slawson. I then introduce in evidence this Exhibit No. 5.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Slawson. Finally, I have here a document marked Priscilla Johnson Exhibit No. 6, which purports to be a true copy of an article written by you as published in Harper's magazine.
MissJohnson. April 1964.
Mr.Slawson. Right; in the April 1964 issue.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.)
MissJohnson. Yes.
Mr.Slawson. That is a true copy?
MissJohnson. Yes.
Mr.Slawson. I introduce as evidence, present this as Exhibit No. 6.
(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was received in evidence.)
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson, to begin the deposition, I would like you to state, with the help of your notes or articles at any time you want to refer to them, exactly when and where and how many times you saw Lee Harvey Oswald.
MissJohnson. May I have the calendar. I saw him, Lee Harvey Oswald, on two occasions. First of all I had been at the American Embassy in Moscow, and Mr. McVickar, the consul, had told me that a would-be defector was staying at my hotel, that he had shown a reluctance to talk with officials of the Embassyor with other correspondents, but knowing my interest in kind of human interest stories, he thought that I might want to see this man. This was on an afternoon in November, and I think it must have been Monday, November 16, 1959, that Mr. McVickar advised me to see Mr. Oswald. So I stopped by Mr. Oswald's room, which was the floor below my own room in the Metropole Hotel. He lived on the second floor. I asked him for an interview, and he agreed to come to my room in the hotel that evening at an hour he named. I forgot what hour it was—8 or 9. So the second occasion on which I saw him was when he actually came that evening, and he stayed until the early hours of the morning, although I don't remember what hour. So far as I know, those were the only two occasions on which I saw him.
Mr.Slawson. He was in the same hotel you were staying in?
MissJohnson. Yes. Could I interpolate a question here?
Mr.Slawson. Certainly.
MissJohnson. Maybe it is out of line, but do you know whether he did stay at that hotel the rest of the time or did he go and leave? You see when I went back they had said he left. Had he actually gone to another hotel or did he remain in that hotel all the time?
Mr.Slawson. I believe that he was staying in the Hotel Metropole at the time you saw him, and I think he stayedthere——
MissJohnson. The rest of the time?
Mr.Slawson. The rest of the time. He had previously been in, I think, the Hotel Berlin, but he had moved to the Metropole before you saw him.
MissJohnson. And they did move him out of the Berlin?
Mr.Slawson. That is right.
MissJohnson. He stayed in the Metropole?
Mr.Slawson. Stayed in the Metropole.
MissJohnson. So I was informed incorrectly when I was told he had gone by the people at the hotel?
Mr.Slawson. Do you remember when you were informed that he had gone?
MissJohnson. Yes. I think that it was Thursday, the 19th.
Mr.Slawson. Could you state some of the details of that, how that came about that you were so informed?
MissJohnson. Sure. Well, I wrote the story about him. I must have filed it on the 18th, but I don't think it was in connection with the story but with rather the fact that I had been told by him that he thought he would leave the hotel at the end of the week. So as soon as I had written the story and wasn't too busy in other ways, I went to the hotel. The woman who sat on his floor, the second floor, and I think it was the 19th, a Thursday, I asked if Mr. Oswald was there, because I wanted to catch him before he left. I expected he would leave the 20th. And because I kind of wanted to keep in contact with him, for his sake. And the woman who was sitting on the second floor—I don't know what you call her—who gave the keys out, just threw up her hands and said, "He is gone." So I asked her when he had gone, and she said she didn't know. So I assumed I had been informed correctly, and didn't try to get in touch with him again. And he had told me that he would let me know before he left for good, and he didn't either.
Mr.Slawson. Let us call a recess for a minute here, so that I can look for some records on Oswald's stay at the Hotel Metropole.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Slawson. Miss Johnson, in connection with your statement that you had returned to see Oswald and were told by a woman employee of the hotel on the second floor that he had left at a time which she did not know, I have here a copy of a letter Oswald wrote his brother Robert Oswald dated November 26, 1959 (Commission Exhibit No. 295). At the bottom of the letter he gives his address as "Hotel Metropole, Room 201, Moscow," with the marking, "(New Room)."
MissJohnson. His room when I saw him was, I think it was room 225. It was down a corridor to the right. My room was 319, on the next floor. You turned just a little to the left to get to it. His was about 225 or something like that. So he had probably been moved to a cheaper room. My room would probably have had the same rent as his—$3 a day—but later his was maybe a little bit less.
Mr.Slawson. I see. And would the woman employee of the hotel who told you that Mr. Oswald had gone have had charge only of the old corridor and not the corridor with room 201 in it?
MissJohnson. No; I think she would have had charge of his new room too, but he would have entered it possibly from the other side of the landing. I rather forget where the 01 was, but he might have entered it rather than from her desk turning right and then going down a corridor and then turning left. He might have taken his key from her and gone off to the left from her desk and from the elevator. She would have had charge of his room, but she might have been on duty for the first time since he moved, and only been aware that he had left—she might not have been trying to mislead me. It might have been her first day on duty since he switched his room, and she might have seen he wasn't in 225 and not realized that he was on the same floor but in another room.
I think the key thing is they probably gave him a very inexpensive room, since they were paying or since he was very poor. They perhaps accommodated him in allowing him to switch rooms.
Mr.Slawson. You mentioned a minute ago that he might have taken his key from her. You mean by that that ordinarily—or rather, frequently—a hotel guest would leave his key with the woman on his floor, but that it was possible to carry the key with you so that you would not have to pick it up from her?
MissJohnson. No; customarily you pick it up from her when you go to your room and you leave it with her when you leave your room. It is simply that she would have had a book in which she had written down the room number of every guest, and I think each morning changes would be recorded there. My guess is that she rather than consciously misleading me—although she could have been told to say he was out, was gone—that there is a very good chance that she simply had not taken in that he was still there and in another room.
He would have left his key though, and customarily she would have always asked him for the key when he left.
Mr.Slawson. Did Oswald say something to you which would have led you to believe that he was interested in getting a less expensive room at the hotel?
MissJohnson. He struck me as notably reticent about his finances, about his financial situation. He told me, truthfully or otherwise; that he had been there for 10 days on Intourist. He said he was paying the standard room and food rate, and said "I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." I must have asked him about his financial situation in some detail, because I thought it would give a clue as to how they were handling him. If they had allowed him to go from the $30 a day rate, that is the rate if you come Intourist which he said he was on, if they allowed him to go from $30 to a lesser sum, since mine was $3, that would indicate that they had an interest in him and they were seeking to help him, whether he knew it or not.
And he was defensive. He bristled on the point, and I assume that there was more of an exchange of words than I took notes of, and that there was something there. I just didn't know what it was, and I couldn't get it out of him.